High rpm vs low rpms on ford engines

[mtnrgr]

Going through my memory and was thinking about this, and trying to remember this through my life. My recalls are I prefer high rpm torque engines for multiple purposes. I have driven many low rpm torque engines, and honestly it's not my liking. My first truck was a 88 ranger with a 2.3 5spd in1989 when i turned 16 and got my license. In 1994 I bought my 94 3.0 5spd new. What I became used to.

As time went on I drove alot of foxbody 5.0 autos and manual transmissions. Engines were stock, also drove alot of built up foxbody 5 0..etc. Including my dad's old 94 5.0 f150 he had for years until he passed a few years ago.

We all have our reasons for which we prefer. It will wether on our own experiences from daily driver to off roading and weather. I have do all of it whether driving or being a passenger.

My favorite engines are 2.3 88-97, 3.0 92-97, 5.0 88-00.

Would like to hear all of trs do you prefer high or low torque engines? List what are your favorite..would like to hear your reasons

I chose my three due to I have been around those the most and have seen many times what these can do. From the Aerostar, f series 5.0, bronco, Taurus, ranger, explorer 5.0 my favorite

Would like to hear your choices. Doing some memory exercises for myself from my brain injury. Been having more memory problems, doing this to help.

This is ford engines only

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Lots of torque low in the band all day for me.

 

[SenorNoob]

Lots of torque low in the band all day for me.

Gotta be able to pull weight from a dead stop. Kinda hard to when the engine has to be turning 3500RPM first.

It's not unusual for me to be moving things that causes my RPM to drop enough that oil pressure drops for just a second.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

Gotta be able to pull weight from a dead stop. Kinda hard to when the engine has to be turning 3500RPM first.

It's not unusual for me to be moving things that causes my RPM to drop enough that oil pressure drops for just a second.

I like that "kick" when you jam the throttle from a stop.

Plus honestly...i get nervous at anything over 3000rpm sustained for more then a 15 or 20 seconds...if i hit 5 or more ill lay off for a shift even in an auto.

 

[Curious Hound]

I prefer low end torque. I know it's just a mental thing. But when I have an engine wound up in high rpms, I feel like I'm abusing it.

With that said, I have a lot of respect for the 3.0 in my Ranger. It's the wrong engine for me and what I do with the Ranger. But it's tough and keeps on ticking.

I had 88 F150, 4x4, years ago with the 5.0l. Loved that engine but would have preferred a 351. I've driven other people's 460s and love the power but don't want to feed one on a regular basis. A 300 would have been good in that truck, too, especially with the manual transmission that had the creeper gear.

I had a '90 F350 with a N/A 7.3l diesel and loved it. I have recently acquired a 2002 F250 with the 7.3l Powerstroke and love that even more.

To me, a good, torquey engine humming along at low to mid rpms sounds happy and keeps me stress-free. I used to bush- hog with my ex-wife's uncle's Ford 6610 diesel tractor and I found that thing to be relaxing and fun to drive. The sound was a happy sound.

 

[Roert42]

I like a nice high rpm spinner when you get a chance to use them, but I don’t have much chance to wind it out that much. Lots if tight windy blind curves and steep hills. But when I drove my buddies mini a few months ago it was a blast when you could get it up over 3 or 4k. Just feels weird driving around in stop and go traffic at 3500rpm.

That being said, I generally prefer a low rpm jobber for daily driving. I had a 300 with a M5O2 and 3.55, fantastic power for a daily driver. My 3.8 was nice too, especially with the 4.10 rear, peaked between 2 and 3k rpm,, so perfect for my driving style as well. Kinda fell flat on its face after 3k though.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Low to mid for me.

My Ranger doesn't have either a super low first or low range so having oomph down low is really nice.

For towing I really liked my old 5.4 F-150. Made 350lb-ft at 2500 RPM and it was glorious.

Current 5.0 F-150 makes like 380 @ 3800. Tow haul setting does an ok job of band aiding it but you have to put the spurs to it to get it going, it doesn't really start showing signs of life until 2k. Tons of passing power on the interstate or whatever though.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

All in what I’m doing with it really. My first Ranger was a 2000 with a 3.0 and 5 speed, when I found it liked to rev, I was always driving with my foot in it. Kinda miss being able to run around in that. I worked it hard, but it was more a runner.

My B2s had 2.9s, which is more low end. The Choptop was a runner with the manual, and still is now on 35’s with a 4.0. The 2.9 didn’t like 35’s much, it would pull decently hard 1st-3rd, then fall flat on its face in 4th. The autos were… disappointing, but I know that’s the auto and a shift kit and valve body mods will help that. They got around fine, but…

My green 00 Ranger and red 92 both were 4.0 auto. They did what I needed them to, but the 92 really woke up when I did the valve body work to the A4LD, it was an entirely different truck after that and is unfortunately currently wrecked (someone passed a semi in the center turn lane to help with that). Green Ranger is now a 5.0 but I haven’t got to drive it yet. Built a 5.0 Ranger for dad a few years back (unfortunately wrecked when someone ran a red light and clocked it), that was a lot of fun.

My F-150 has the 300, gobs of low end, not at all a fast vehicle, but it’s dragged everything I’ve hooked it too and has a penchant for finding the weakest link in the drivetrain. It’s a great work truck though, which is what I wanted. F-350 has a 460, and that’s a great motor, just really thirsty (8mpg everywhere, empty or full, and 9 on the highway with a tailwind). Also they are notorious for soft valve guides causing it to loose compression and drink oil (which is currently the problem with it, have to pop the heads off and take them to the machine shop). The good news is that the fuel economy doesn’t change, empty or loaded dragging a trailer and machine. With an RV cam and some tweaks, they can be an absolute beast and start out in third empty…

 

[mikkelstuff]

I'll take lot of low RPM torque any day - like the 460 in my '75 Ranchero. Not that much horsepower originally but plenty of torque. Now with 429 heads and a decent cam, this 460 ran 400 hp on the dyno to go with the torque.

Which brings me to the 3.0L in my 2002 Ranger. What a dog! Yes it will run 80 mph all day but sure takes awhile to get there. I have to hope I don't get run down any time I enter the interstate highway. Geezery I wish Colorado emissions would let me do the 5.0L swap in this otherwise fine truck.

 

[lil_Blue_Ford]

I'll take lot of low RPM torque any day - like the 460 in my '75 Ranchero. Not that much horsepower originally but plenty of torque. Now with 429 heads and a decent cam, this 460 ran 400 hp on the dyno to go with the torque.

Which brings me to the 3.0L in my 2002 Ranger. What a dog! Yes it will run 80 mph all day but sure takes awhile to get there. I have to hope I don't get run down any time I enter the interstate highway. Geezery I wish Colorado emissions would let me do the 5.0L swap in this otherwise fine truck.

Shift kit and stuff in the trans will help it

 

[Curious Hound]

I failed to mention my current F150 earlier. It has the 4.6l and auto transmission. It needs to Rev. Ivebeen driving it for around 5 years now. Several times a year, I ask it (force it into slavery, really) to haul my Ranger on a 20ft car trailer. Trips to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, etc. It doesn't do well in the mountains. I end up pulling into the far right lane with the big trucks and sometimes I'm down less than 45mph and they have to pass me. Granted, a Ranger with 6" lift on 35's, sitting up on a car trailer is at least as much of an aerodynamic disaster as that enclosed trailer shown above. A 5.4l and manual transmission would probably make me almost happy with this truck, except the brakes aren't wonderful either. These trips are always stressful for me. I often feel like I'm slowly murdering the truck and twice have not really stopped exactly where I should have. Yes, the trailer has brakes. Hence, the Fun50 is being replaced by the Powerstroke F250.

 

[bobbywalter]

Going through my memory and was thinking about this, and trying to remember this through my life. My recalls are I prefer high rpm torque engines for multiple purposes. I have driven many low rpm torque engines, and honestly it's not my liking. My first truck was a 88 ranger with a 2.3 5spd in1989 when i turned 16 and got my license. In 1994 I bought my 94 3.0 5spd new. What I became used to.

As time went on I drove alot of foxbody 5.0 autos and manual transmissions. Engines were stock, also drove alot of built up foxbody 5 0..etc. Including my dad's old 94 5.0 f150 he had for years until he passed a few years ago.

We all have our reasons for which we prefer. It will wether on our own experiences from daily driver to off roading and weather. I have do all of it whether driving or being a passenger.

My favorite engines are 2.3 88-97, 3.0 92-97, 5.0 88-00.

Would like to hear all of trs do you prefer high or low torque engines? List what are your favorite..would like to hear your reasons

I chose my three due to I have been around those the most and have seen many times what these can do. From the Aerostar, f series 5.0, bronco, Taurus, ranger, explorer 5.0 my favorite

Would like to hear your choices. Doing some memory exercises for myself from my brain injury. Been having more memory problems, doing this to help.

This is ford engines only

best ford offering though technically not really a ford engine....


7.3 idi factory ats turbo first choice. best power and economy and cost effective to keep running and diy the whole damn thing...dumber then a bag of hammer heads and as reliable as can be expected.


then the 6.7 scorpion....an actual ford engine.




ford only....hmmmm...for gas engines...




its hard to say overall, because i like low, mid, and high depending on application....what is the primary use???.

overall...


now...this is strictly speaking stock with maybe average monkey diy bolt ons...

for a heavy work truck....


.....hands down godzilla.....even know they are at a 100 percent failure in the work fleet.....it is the most ridiculous naturally aspirated gas engine in a work truck I have ever used. its just kewl......how it works.

before that...i would have said the v10 dodge hd setup....the 3 valve 5.4 i liked better then any 460 as well..(stock 460.....stock!! very important distinction...) likely that was mostly the transmission and cams allowing for the preference. i am amazed that something with half the cubes so easily outperformed per a certain application. but...your adding extreme complexity to get there........very cheap and easy mods to a 460, gets them to decent usability....and most importantly...longevity.... the cost of ownership for repair and reliability with the 460 is hard to beat. at the end of the day...thats all that matters for poor boys.

godzilla has some flaws to be sure.... it does ratio out in my application pulling 14k....which is something that does bug me...but that is in the oem programming to keep the powertrain alive for warranty....

which clearly they failed with the oiling system....

I suspect it was mostly covid parts sourcing because the lifter manufacturing issues were not caught on from 2019......and I am banking on that assessment...that and they want these engines to die before 250k....so for now....questionable...but we will see.




for a commuter ranger....i would be tempted to the mazda L. clearly the best engine that ever was laid in the frame rails of a ranger. for stock rbv....in commuter primary where you are not exceeding rated capacity...the power and economy is outstanding and engine life. i would not call it high rpm....likely rate it mid.

more importantly....you can boost it a bit and get double the power sometimes before 1 full atmosphere. i have seen 10ish psi get 260 plus rwhp depending on fueling scenario....if i remember right that particular truck went from 12x rwhp to 26x....and they were expecting mid 220s to low 230s rwhp. THAT....got my full attention. they quickly earned my respect not long after that watching ford focus shitboxes whoop the fawk out of mid build 5.0 mustangs.





then there are the cyclones. these can cover everything in n/a.... low....mid... and high rpm.

in ecoboost form, they are a low rpm engine.

depending on configuration.

this tiny little 3.5 liter thing bitch slaps the godzilla or anything ever, so far, in any half ton to one ton civillian pick up truck vehicle.... I have a Powerboost...150. it needs a 1 ton rear end...because it is so powerful, in normal use, they destroy the super bad ass axle they come with stock. so ford engineering...sux. they just suck. trust me. i have to fix those billions of dollars and years of r@d and thousands of thousands of geniuses bullshit regularly. yeah....me. captain GED.

in N/A form ....the cyclone is an all rpm busy body, with power on top really coming on.....its response to tuning and boltons is so underknown.

these little guys have supplanted the 351 windsor for me....(remember stock with diy average monkey boltons) they are the modern windsor for me. they are complex and need higher oil change intervals from oem recommendation....but they are just awesome if you take care of them. they meet or exceed 302 windsor and 351 capacity in the light duty 1/2 ton work truck...

and if you want to push air through them....you just push air through them and tune. they will survive at a higher limit then the 302.


compared to anything from the 90s and back....there is just no comparison.

they have weaknesses....the front drive version is a train wreck to do water pumps ect....and they are variable cams...so...lots of stuff can go wrong....and later units add complexity with the various injection types ect...

but they can do it all when looking at it from an rbv application. they are cheap...and can utilize the 6r80 transmission. this swapped into an old school ranger is a venerable combination that does it all.


so you dont just need to pick. just look at the stuff that is out there carefully.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

best ford offering though technically not really a ford engine....


7.3 idi factory ats turbo first choice. best power and economy and cost effective to keep running and diy the whole damn thing...dumber then a bag of hammer heads and as reliable as can be expected.


then the 6.7 scorpion....an actual ford engine.




ford only....hmmmm...for gas engines...




its hard to say overall, because i like low, mid, and high depending on application....what is the primary use???.

overall...


now...this is strictly speaking stock with maybe average monkey diy bolt ons...

for a heavy work truck....


.....hands down godzilla.....even know they are at a 100 percent failure in the work fleet.....it is the most ridiculous naturally aspirated gas engine in a work truck I have ever used. its just kewl......how it works.

before that...i would have said the v10 dodge hd setup....the 3 valve 5.4 i liked better then any 460 as well..(stock 460.....stock!! very important distinction...) likely that was mostly the transmission and cams allowing for the preference. i am amazed that something with half the cubes so easily outperformed per a certain application. but...your adding extreme complexity to get there........very cheap and easy mods to a 460, gets them to decent usability....and most importantly...longevity.... the cost of ownership for repair and reliability with the 460 is hard to beat. at the end of the day...thats all that matters for poor boys.

godzilla has some flaws to be sure.... it does ratio out in my application pulling 14k....which is something that does bug me...but that is in the oem programming to keep the powertrain alive for warranty....

which clearly they failed with the oiling system....

I suspect it was mostly covid parts sourcing because the lifter manufacturing issues were not caught on from 2019......and I am banking on that assessment...that and they want these engines to die before 250k....so for now....questionable...but we will see.




for a commuter ranger....i would be tempted to the mazda L. clearly the best engine that ever was laid in the frame rails of a ranger. for stock rbv....in commuter primary where you are not exceeding rated capacity...the power and economy is outstanding and engine life. i would not call it high rpm....likely rate it mid.

more importantly....you can boost it a bit and get double the power sometimes before 1 full atmosphere. i have seen 10ish psi get 260 plus rwhp depending on fueling scenario....if i remember right that particular truck went from 12x rwhp to 26x....and they were expecting mid 220s to low 230s rwhp. THAT....got my full attention. they quickly earned my respect not long after that watching ford focus shitboxes whoop the fawk out of mid build 5.0 mustangs.





then there are the cyclones. these can cover everything in n/a.... low....mid... and high rpm.

in ecoboost form, they are a low rpm engine.

depending on configuration.

this tiny little 3.5 liter thing bitch slaps the godzilla or anything ever, so far, in any half ton to one ton civillian pick up truck vehicle.... I have a Powerboost...150. it needs a 1 ton rear end...because it is so powerful, in normal use, they destroy the super bad ass axle they come with stock. so ford engineering...sux. they just suck. trust me. i have to fix those billions of dollars and years of r@d and thousands of thousands of geniuses bullshit regularly. yeah....me. captain GED.

in N/A form ....the cyclone is an all rpm busy body, with power on top really coming on.....its response to tuning and boltons is so underknown.

these little guys have supplanted the 351 windsor for me....(remember stock with diy average monkey boltons) they are the modern windsor for me. they are complex and need higher oil change intervals from oem recommendation....but they are just awesome if you take care of them. they meet or exceed 302 windsor and 351 capacity in the light duty 1/2 ton work truck...

and if you want to push air through them....you just push air through them and tune. they will survive at a higher limit then the 302.


compared to anything from the 90s and back....there is just no comparison.

they have weaknesses....the front drive version is a train wreck to do water pumps ect....and they are variable cams...so...lots of stuff can go wrong....and later units add complexity with the various injection types ect...

but they can do it all when looking at it from an rbv application. they are cheap...and can utilize the 6r80 transmission. this swapped into an old school ranger is a venerable combination that does it all.


so you dont just need to pick. just look at the stuff that is out there carefully.

The dodge V10's were flat out bull rhinos.

I had a 95 with a manual...it would of beat my 460 up then banged its GF afterwards.

It didnt matter....lug it to 1000 in 4th and it picked right up and was still pulling at 4 or 4500rpm.

But then again....mopar has always known how to build strong engines.

 

[bobbywalter]

The dodge V10's were flat out bull rhinos.

I had a 95 with a manual...it would of beat my 460 up then banged its GF afterwards.

It didnt matter....lug it to 1000 in 4th and it picked right up and was still pulling at 4 or 4500rpm.

But then again....mopar has always known how to build strong engines.

facts.....definitely facts...

 

[sgtsandman]

For what I do, low end is preferred. I rarely every have a need to wind out the engine for anything. So, a high revving engine for maximum torque is not useful to me. Torque is only part of the equation though. You can have an engine grunting all kinds of torque down low but have the wrong gearing, it will kill the benefit.